The end motive behind a gun owners decision to restore a gun has a lot to do with whether he plans to keep it, knowing he would enjoy it more because it was more pleasing to his own eye, as opposed to doing it to make it more desirable to potential buyers.
Without doubt, we've all seen 'restorations' done poorly. These become examples for those that would argue against such work. Top shelf work almost never comes without a substantial investment, and those few who are capable of this work are always busy; justifiably so.
Those who haven't had the opportunity to look at, and really study high condition original guns may be satisfied with a greater number of guns done by those who call themselves qualified. Likewise, when an owner really knows the details of color, fit and finish that left Parker Brothers, in my opinion, does the gun proud.
Guns which have been well cared for, and simply exhibit the evidence of loving use, may best be left alone, but a gun that has suffered from poor care, with deep scratches in the wood, dings in the tubes or pitting would likely give the owner greater pleasure with a good freshening at the minimum, to total restoration at the maximum. After all, doesn't the word 'Restoration' really imply bringing something back to it's original condition? When it's all done, and doesn't look like it did when it left Meriden, is it restored, or just reworked?
In short, I believe properly restored guns have real value. I don't think upgraded guns ever achieve that level of value and broad desirability.
|